Why is there an Electoral College

[synthesis2]

It started in the 1700's when people didn't have access to information and understanding as to what is going on with the canidates but with everything we have today to make a good informed decision, it simply dosent make any sense.

Examples: If you live in Texas and are a democrat your vote dosen't count

If you live in California and are a republican your vote dosen't count

I have never heard a good argument as to why a popular vote dosen't work in today's society.

If the majority of the people want one person but the electorial college says the other is the winner why is that right?

Look I really don't care who wins in the end with divided house/senate very little is going to happen, we all know that.

My rant is why we can't finally go to a vote that makes sense.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by L.A. Chieffan

The EC votes in the heavily populated areas would still far outweigh the small unpopulated inland areas and the ECs the Repub candidate might pick up would be negated by the ECs the Democratic candidate would pick up in states that end up being Republican.

Again, if there was actually a candidate that was worth voting for then California would vote for them.

True and not true. While the heavily populated areas would rightfully be granted more EC votes, they could easily be outnumbered by the collective of smaller EC vote areas in the totality of the race.

AND, one does not negate the other per say in the manner which you present it. Quite the contrary. Just using some hypo's and last night's election let's look at this.

If 40 of the 55 CA votes went to urban areas, Obama probably loses 15 points off his total, hypo speaking. Romney by the same token picks up 15.

Florida let's say of the 29 votes, 18 go to urnab areas. Again, hypo speaking, Obama loses 11 votes, Romney picks up 11.

Between those 2 states alone that's a 26 point swing while still granting urban areas over 1/2 the total EC votes of the state.

what it does in theory is grants the dominant vote to the more populated areas while still giving the outliers a say in the election overall.

Look at Ohio. 18 votes. Give 12 to Urbans and 6 to the rest. Most likely costs Obama another 6 EC votes.

Just givent he hypos with just those 3 states, Obama is suddenly down 32 EC votes.

You add states like PA, NY and TX in that mix and we have a totally different outcome though Obama may still win. Most likely though givent he election map he wouldn't have.

to me it's about as fair as you can get without going straight vote.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Bullshit. It's the method that best benefits you.

Not true.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by tk13

I get the concept, but I don't understand why dividing it up at a county level is a better idea than any other process. The vote is still based on a state level... in Nevada for instance, there are obviously way more people in the blue counties than red counties... or Romney would've won the state. Why would you punish people for living in a more populated county? There doesn't seem to be a point to the idea beyond that.

It's not punishing them at all. It's spreading out the EC votes so that the less populated areas still have an effective say in the overall outcome of the election. 2 states already do it and both are much, much smaller than CA.

So I guess the question is, why would you punish people for living in a less populated area?

[Cannibal]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

I dont understand why there isnt more of a push to abolish it? Especially since 2000 and the POTUS elections being so close.


I agree, its pointless. Theres this myth out there that a direct election would force the candidates to concentrate on only big cities, but how is that any different than what we have now where they only campaign in like 7 or 8 swing states? IN fact, id argue that the EC makes alot of voters stay home and not care, if they know their vote doesnt matter.

Ill take an election process with a TRUE "Every Vote Counts" any day of the week.

The Electoral College is a Joke.

Agreed

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by petegz28

True and not true. While the heavily populated areas would rightfully be granted more EC votes, they could easily be outnumbered by the collective of smaller EC vote areas in the totality of the race.

AND, one does not negate the other per say in the manner which you present it. Quite the contrary. Just using some hypo's and last night's election let's look at this.

If 40 of the 55 CA votes went to urban areas, Obama probably loses 15 points off his total, hypo speaking. Romney by the same token picks up 15.

Florida let's say of the 29 votes, 18 go to urnab areas. Again, hypo speaking, Obama loses 11 votes, Romney picks up 11.

Between those 2 states alone that's a 26 point swing while still granting urban areas over 1/2 the total EC votes of the state.

what it does in theory is grants the dominant vote to the more populated areas while still giving the outliers a say in the election overall.

Look at Ohio. 18 votes. Give 12 to Urbans and 6 to the rest. Most likely costs Obama another 6 EC votes.

Just givent he hypos with just those 3 states, Obama is suddenly down 32 EC votes.

You add states like PA, NY and TX in that mix and we have a totally different outcome though Obama may still win. Most likely though givent he election map he wouldn't have.

to me it's about as fair as you can get without going straight vote.

What about that would be "fair?" Outside of the state distinction, land doesn't (and shouldn't) vote.

[tk13]

Originally Posted by petegz28

It's not punishing them at all. It's spreading out the EC votes so that the less populated areas still have an effective say in the overall outcome of the election. 2 states already do it and both are much, much smaller than CA.

So I guess the question is, why would you punish people for living in a less populated area?

You aren't. Their vote counts as 1 vote, just like a person living in a big city does.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

What about that would be "fair?" Outside of the state distinction, land doesn't (and shouldn't) vote.

How is it not fair? I said the higher populated areas would be granted more EC votes. They just don't get to dominate the entire state. If a state line Maine or Nebraska can do it I think a state like CA or TX can do it.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by petegz28

True and not true. While the heavily populated areas would rightfully be granted more EC votes, they could easily be outnumbered by the collective of smaller EC vote areas in the totality of the race.

AND, one does not negate the other per say in the manner which you present it. Quite the contrary. Just using some hypo's and last night's election let's look at this.

If 40 of the 55 CA votes went to urban areas, Obama probably loses 15 points off his total, hypo speaking. Romney by the same token picks up 15.

Florida let's say of the 29 votes, 18 go to urnab areas. Again, hypo speaking, Obama loses 11 votes, Romney picks up 11.

Between those 2 states alone that's a 26 point swing while still granting urban areas over 1/2 the total EC votes of the state.

what it does in theory is grants the dominant vote to the more populated areas while still giving the outliers a say in the election overall.

Look at Ohio. 18 votes. Give 12 to Urbans and 6 to the rest. Most likely costs Obama another 6 EC votes.

Just givent he hypos with just those 3 states, Obama is suddenly down 32 EC votes.

You add states like PA, NY and TX in that mix and we have a totally different outcome though Obama may still win. Most likely though givent he election map he wouldn't have.

to me it's about as fair as you can get without going straight vote.

If you are going to split it, you do it by congressional districts (like Nebraska). Your apparently rather arbitrary method seems kind of retarded.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by tk13

You aren't. Their vote counts as 1 vote, just like a person living in a big city does.

That would be true if it were a straight majority vote for the overall election. But it isn't.

To go with your argument, CA's votes should not count any more than KS's votes but they get 49 more EC votes.

I am just tossing out a theory that tries to meet that middle ground between the current EC and straight majority vote.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Not true.

Out of the 3, which benefits your party the most?

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

If you are going to split it, you do it by congressional districts (like Nebraska). Your apparently rather arbitrary method seems kind of retarded.

You're ****ing retarded. I said that was all hypo. Do you understand the definition of hypothetical?

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by petegz28

That would be true if it were a straight majority vote for the overall election. But it isn't.

To go with your argument, CA's votes should not count any more than KS's votes but they get 49 more EC votes.

I am just tossing out a theory that tries to meet that middle ground between the current EC and straight majority vote.

One that attempts to negate the population difference between KS and CA.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by tk13

You aren't. Their vote counts as 1 vote, just like a person living in a big city does.

Exactly.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Out of the 3, which benefits your party the most?

Tough to say. Bush won the EC, lost the Pop. In the current climate the split EC vote would probably favor R's.

I'm just trying to find some middle ground.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

One that attempts to negate the population difference between KS and CA.

How so? Where did I say CA should get less than 55 EC's and Kansas should get more than 6?